- 4 -
Federal income tax return for either 2001 or 2002. Respondent,
pursuant to section 6020(b), filed a return for 2002 for
petitioner. Petitioner had single filing status for the 2002
taxable year.
On April 7, 2006, respondent issued the aforementioned
notice of deficiency.4 Petitioner then filed a timely petition
3(...continued)
pension distribution, whether creditable under sec. 31 or any
other section, is treated either as a payment of estimated tax
pursuant to sec. 6654(g)(1) or as a credit against tax under sec.
6654(f). See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 211 n.13
(2006); Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 323 n.12 (2003).
Although we are not bound by stipulations of fact that are
contrary to the facts reflected by the record, whether the
$33,671.14 in Federal income tax withheld from the pension
distribution was treated as a payment of estimated tax or a
credit against estimated tax, the result is the same because
petitioner underpaid his estimated tax for 2002 and because
respondent calculated the addition to tax after accounting for
the $33,671.14 in Federal income tax that had been withheld.
4 Before we proceed, it is worth noting that the notice of
deficiency in this case was prepared in a haphazard manner. In
that regard, under the section for penalties and additions to
tax, the notice of deficiency itself lists additions to tax under
secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a). It does not list an addition to
tax under sec. 6651(a)(2). In addition, the Form 5564, Notice of
Deficiency Waiver, sent together with the notice of deficiency,
fails to list the sec. 6651(a)(2) addition to tax. The sec.
6651(a)(2) addition to tax was listed only in the Form 4549,
Income Tax Examination Changes, which was included as an
attachment to the notice of deficiency. Suffice it to note that
respondent raised the sec. 6651(a)(2) addition to tax in his
answer, albeit while misciting that section as sec. 6652(a)(2).
Although the quality of the notice of deficiency is
inconsequential to the outcome in this case, we caution that the
same might not be true in a future case involving a similarly
defective notice of deficiency. In any event, an internally
inconsistent notice of deficiency might be confusing to a
taxpayer and does not serve the interests of justice.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007